The filed-rate doctrine precluded recovery of deficiency assessments the Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association (WCRA) levied against employers which were alleged to have been wrongfully collected in 2013 and 2014 when the WCRA no longer had a deficit.

The employers argued that the filed-rate doctrine “does not apply to deficient-premiums assessments and deficiency assessments, and that the doctrine does not bar their claims because they seek only to enforce the WCRA statutes and the commissioner’s orders imposing those assessments.” A Minnesota trial court disagreed, and its dismissal of the claims was affirmed by Minnesota’s Court of Appeals, which noted:

1. the separation-of-powers concerns favor application of the filed-rate doctrine as the challenged assessments were recommended by a legislatively created nonprofit entity;
2. justiciability concerns favor application of the filed-rate doctrine because “a court order requiring WCRA to refund millions of assessments dollars would substantially reduce the funding base that WCRA uses to pay claims” potentially triggering the need for future assessments and the “courts are ill-equipped to fashion relief that appropriately contextualizes deficient-premiums assessments and deficiency assessments within this complex and evolving scheme; and
3. non-discrimination concerns favor application of the filed-rate doctrine, because a “retroactive judicial damages award that effectively adjusts a rate for some ratepayers but not others would create discrimination in the rate schedule.”

Ambassador Press, Inc., et al. v. Trifac Workers’ Compensation Fund, et al., 62-CV-16-1713 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2017).